Has anyone read this on Ick?

[ebushrow]

https://reefbuilders.com/2017/01/10...il&utm_term=0_88f38223c1-167cb27247-428913461

#Humblefish
#melypr1985
#reefsquad

What do you guys think? Seems pretty basic but I am not sure if the life cycle is correct....

 

[Diesel]

Well that is nothing new.
I did a micronano bubbling on my QT tank with a really sick fish full of Ick I got from a member.
After 3 weeks all the ick was gone, brought him over to a regular QT and Ick came back.
Dropped the fish in the QT with micronano bubbles again and left him for 14 weeks there, he was as happy he could be.
For a change I didn't move him but stopped the micronano bubbling and guess what..................
The ick was back after 4 days.
Atfter that I did the good old TTM for three weeks and fish is healthy and swimming now almost 18 months in my frag tank with no sign of Ick.

So basically if you have a parasite and I'll feed you good food make you healthy, stress free and give you enough clean oxygen you will get cured of the parasite without any further treatment and medication................. that's why I never get sick I guess!

 

[TheEngineer]

you will get cured

Nit picking, but I would say your fish got over the active infection, but wasn't cured

 

[jsker]

https://reefbuilders.com/2017/01/10...il&utm_term=0_88f38223c1-167cb27247-428913461

#Humblefish
#melypr1985
#reefsquad

What do you guys think? Seems pretty basic but I am not sure if the life cycle is correct....

Posted a comprehensive read yesterday on Ich in a discussion. There are so many different views on how to treat ich, it kind of like a chili recipe everyone has the best way. Keep the stress low and the immune system high, and if one gets ich in the tank either QT or treat in the tank, that is the decision of the hoppiest makes.

Here is a really good read link

I have been treating with my own recipe and it works, but from reading the above linked read, did I get it all? That is the questions with Ich (Cryptocaryon) understanding is more the issue, and then treating.

 

[4FordFamily]

I don't know how much more oxygen my tang tank can have with total two skimmers and 450 gallons skimming power in a 180 with 55 gal sump, and powerheads galore many pointed upward. I assure you this alone did not help.

I know I sound skeptical but wouldn't it be hard to see ich on a fish with micro bubbles everywhere? Could that play a factor?

 

[Diesel]

You just can't cure Ick without the right treatment or medication.
I had a tank years ago that had Ick for 12 years and yet not one fish died ever on me in that tank even new additions.
From time to time I saw some ick spots popping up but never worried about it.
Now days is better to just keep Ick out of your tank, by doing the medication or in my case the TTM for at least three weeks and I transfer every 4 days.

 

[happyhourhero]

I always just refer to this...

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/m/#publication?id=FA164

 

[jsker]

You just can't cure Ick without the right treatment or medication.
I had a tank years ago that had Ick for 12 years and yet not one fish died ever on me in that tank even new additions.
From time to time I saw some ick spots popping up but never worried about it.
Now days is better to just keep Ick out of your tank, by doing the medication or in my case the TTM for at least three weeks and I transfer every 4 days.

From the linked post that I posted #4 ich is alway in the water column, even in the wild. Ich is just more concentrated in the hobby system then the wild. The interesting thing is the gestation and life cycle of ich.
The real questions we have to ask ourselves is

• Do I have Ich or not?
• Do I QT with copper or Treat the system with an antibiotic or something else?
• How long do I treat the QT or System?

 

[Humblefish]

https://reefbuilders.com/2017/01/10...il&utm_term=0_88f38223c1-167cb27247-428913461

There are several inaccuracies to be found in this article; statements made (about the lifecycle in particular) which do not line up with known information found in peer-reviewed articles on Cryptocaryon irritans.

 

[ebushrow]

There are several inaccuracies to be found in this article; statements made (about the lifecycle in particular) which do not line up with known information found in peer-reviewed articles on Cryptocaryon irritans.

That was my beginning point of skepticism here (life cycle)...the rest went down hill from there. I was actually embarrassed for ReefBuilders for publishing this article... needless to say, newbies could really be confused/misinformed by this article.

I might actually contact ReefBuilders to tell them how bad this article is...never done that before, but that's why I wanted to run this by you guys and gals here to be sure I wasn't misinformed.

 

[TheEngineer]

RB hasn't been about producing accurate content in a long time. I don't think he'd care, unfortunately.

 

[ebushrow]

Here is what I wrote to reefbuilders...in case you were wondering...

Hello .....(didn't want to add the name here for the post),
I wanted to express my concern for the recent article on Ich. This article is plagued with inaccuracies based on current scientific research/literature on the topic.

It is not that it is "too basic" of an article, it is that the inaccuracies start with the "life cycle of Ich" and continue throughout the article. This concerns me for the reefing community, by allowing people that are especially "new" into the hobby and rely on publications such as ReefBuilders for their information for future use and to commit to long term memory.

I know nothing about the author of the article, but can tell you from scientifically, peer-reviewed journals, that the time that cyst live in the aquarium after release from the tomonts is much longer than 3-28 days to start with. As the editor of the journal/magazine, I would not assume that you could be an expert on everything related to the coral reefs and home reefing, however, I feel that when a mistake is made, it should be corrected.

I am not telling/demanding anything in this email, more so trying to express my sadness that this was so badly researched that it could cause unnecessary harm to fish and expense to readers that hold these articles as gospel in their current and reefing future.

Now, what I would like to see - and it is just a suggestion, not a demand that might save some egg on the face in my opinion, would be to publish a follow-up article on ich "diving deeper into Ich"...like a 2 part series maybe. If you would like to do something like this, I could suggest a couple of really informed researchers on the topic to write/consult on the topic (I am no expert by any stretch in my opinion). Again, this is not an attacking email "demanding" anything, or telling you how to do your job, however, it is to express my deep concern and sadness over the article and the misrepresentations/inaccuracies into what ich is and how to combat it in the home reef aquarium.

Sincerely,
.... .......

 

[Empress]

Here is what I wrote to reefbuilders...in case you were wondering...

Hello .....(didn't want to add the name here for the post),
I wanted to express my concern for the recent article on Ich. This article is plagued with inaccuracies based on current scientific research/literature on the topic.

It is not that it is "too basic" of an article, it is that the inaccuracies start with the "life cycle of Ich" and continue throughout the article. This concerns me for the reefing community, by allowing people that are especially "new" into the hobby and rely on publications such as ReefBuilders for their information for future use and to commit to long term memory.

I know nothing about the author of the article, but can tell you from scientifically, peer-reviewed journals, that the time that cyst live in the aquarium after release from the tomonts is much longer than 3-28 days to start with. As the editor of the journal/magazine, I would not assume that you could be an expert on everything related to the coral reefs and home reefing, however, I feel that when a mistake is made, it should be corrected.

I am not telling/demanding anything in this email, more so trying to express my sadness that this was so badly researched that it could cause unnecessary harm to fish and expense to readers that hold these articles as gospel in their current and reefing future.

Now, what I would like to see - and it is just a suggestion, not a demand that might save some egg on the face in my opinion, would be to publish a follow-up article on ich "diving deeper into Ich"...like a 2 part series maybe. If you would like to do something like this, I could suggest a couple of really informed researchers on the topic to write/consult on the topic (I am no expert by any stretch in my opinion). Again, this is not an attacking email "demanding" anything, or telling you how to do your job, however, it is to express my deep concern and sadness over the article and the misrepresentations/inaccuracies into what ich is and how to combat it in the home reef aquarium.

Sincerely,
.... .......

I like the part where you say "I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job". [emoji57]

 

[ebushrow]

I like the part where you say "I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job". [emoji57]

I was trying to get across that it wasn't his fault or that I blamed him...guess it didnt work out so well
:-( I just know that people often want to tell someone how to do their job and they know nothing about it....I was actually trying to be understanding to his position....oh well...too late now.

 

[Empress]

I was trying to get across that it wasn't his fault or that I blamed him...guess it didnt work out so well
:-( I just know that people often want to tell someone how to do their job and they know nothing about it....I was actually trying to be understanding to his position....oh well...too late now.

Naaa. It's ok. Don't worry about it. I wouldn't be surprised if they got a mouthful from others as well. If they can't take criticism they shouldn't be article writers. That's part of their job. You did good sticking up for us. [emoji4]

 

[shoelaceike]

Here is what I wrote to reefbuilders...in case you were wondering...

Hello .....(didn't want to add the name here for the post),
I wanted to express my concern for the recent article on Ich. This article is plagued with inaccuracies based on current scientific research/literature on the topic.

It is not that it is "too basic" of an article, it is that the inaccuracies start with the "life cycle of Ich" and continue throughout the article. This concerns me for the reefing community, by allowing people that are especially "new" into the hobby and rely on publications such as ReefBuilders for their information for future use and to commit to long term memory.

I know nothing about the author of the article, but can tell you from scientifically, peer-reviewed journals, that the time that cyst live in the aquarium after release from the tomonts is much longer than 3-28 days to start with. As the editor of the journal/magazine, I would not assume that you could be an expert on everything related to the coral reefs and home reefing, however, I feel that when a mistake is made, it should be corrected.

I am not telling/demanding anything in this email, more so trying to express my sadness that this was so badly researched that it could cause unnecessary harm to fish and expense to readers that hold these articles as gospel in their current and reefing future.

Now, what I would like to see - and it is just a suggestion, not a demand that might save some egg on the face in my opinion, would be to publish a follow-up article on ich "diving deeper into Ich"...like a 2 part series maybe. If you would like to do something like this, I could suggest a couple of really informed researchers on the topic to write/consult on the topic (I am no expert by any stretch in my opinion). Again, this is not an attacking email "demanding" anything, or telling you how to do your job, however, it is to express my deep concern and sadness over the article and the misrepresentations/inaccuracies into what ich is and how to combat it in the home reef aquarium.

Sincerely,
.... .......

Please post literature with cysts lasting more then 28 days in 78 - 84 degree temperature.

 

[ebushrow]

Please post literature with cysts lasting more then 28 days in 78 - 84 degree temperature.

#Humblefish

 

[Humblefish]

Please post literature with cysts lasting more then 28 days in 78 - 84 degree temperature.

Burgess and Matthews, 1994a (see chart below)



Also, in a recent email exchange with Dr. Colorni, who co-authored the study which discovered the 72 day "variant" of ich; he was unable to conclusively say whether or not lower water temperature was to blame for the prolonged excystment period they encountered.

 

[ebushrow]

Burgess and Matthews, 1994a (see chart below)



Also, in a recent email exchange with Dr. Colorni, who co-authored the study which discovered the 72 day "variant" of ich; he was unable to conclusively say whether or not lower water temperature was to blame for the prolonged excystment period they encountered.

I knew you would have this at the tip of your fingers! TY!!

 

[shoelaceike]

Burgess and Matthews, 1994a (see chart below)



Also, in a recent email exchange with Dr. Colorni, who co-authored the study which discovered the 72 day "variant" of ich; he was unable to conclusively say whether or not lower water temperature was to blame for the prolonged excystment period they encountered.

Thanks but I don't see anything for 72 days?